Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care

Prophylactic acid suppressants in patients with primary neurologic injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Neurocritical care patients are at risk of stress-induced gastrointestinal ulceration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill adults admitted with a primary neurologic injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SUP with histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to placebo/no prophylaxis, as well as to each other. The primary outcome was in-ICU gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Predefined secondary outcomes were all-cause 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), nosocomial pneumonia, and other complications.

RESULTS

We identified 14 relevant trials enrolling 1036 neurocritical care patients; 11 trials enrolling 930 patients were included in the meta-analysis. H2RAs resulted in a lower incidence of GIB as compared to placebo or no prophylaxis (Risk ratio [RR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.58; p < 0.001); PPIs with a lower risk of GIB compared to placebo/no prophylaxis (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59; p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in GIB comparing PPIs with H2RAs (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26-1.06; p = 0.07; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In neurocritical care patients, the overall high or unclear risk of bias of individual trials, the low event rates, and modest sample sizes preclude strong clinical inferences about the utility of SUP.

A Nomogram for Individualized Prediction of Stress-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Critically Ill Patients with Primary Intracerebral Hemorrhage

PURPOSE

To establish and validate a nomogram model for predicting stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2018 to March 2021, we conducted a hospital-based study by screening eligible patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the predictors for stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage. The nomogram was constructed on the basis of multivariate logistic model and was internally validated by bootstrap resampling. The discriminative performance of the nomogram was evaluated using the calibration and concordance index (C-index), which was equal to the area under the curve of receiver-operating characteristics. Hosmer-Lemeshow test was performed to check the model's goodness of fit. A decision curve analysis was used to assess its clinical utility.

RESULTS

A total of 410 patients were enrolled in this study. Stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 115 patients (28.0%). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that gastric pH at admission [odds ratio (OR): 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.66, P < 0.001], ICH volume (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.05, P < 0.001) and sepsis (OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.54-4.25, P < 0.001) were independent predictors for stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients with ICH. The nomogram including gastric pH at admission, ICH volume and sepsis presented good discrimination with C-index of 0.770 (95% CI: 0.716 to 0.822), which was confirmed to be 0.764 through bootstrapping validation. The calibration plot showed good agreement between the predicted and observed outcomes. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed a goodness-of-fit (Chi-Square = 8.085, DF = 8, P = 0.425). Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the nomogram was clinically beneficial.

CONCLUSION

The proposed nomogram based on gastric pH at admission, ICH volume and sepsis can accurately predict the risk of stress-related gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage.

Audit on Practices of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients

Background

This audit was aimed at studying current practices regarding the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the Indian critical care setup, with the background aim of raising awareness regarding the use and indications of SUP in critically ill patients.

Materials and methods

After registering the trial with the clinical trial registry, India, a structured audit questionnaire containing 26 questions pertaining to SUP was distributed through electronic media among clinicians working in the intensive care units (ICUs) across India. Responses obtained were statistically analyzed.

Results

The questionnaire was sent to 550 clinicians. Only 197 responded, of whom 91.4% were anesthesiologists, 5.6% were physicians, and 3% were intensivists. The audit revealed that 33% respondents were unaware of the existing SUP guidelines and around 32% did not have protocols for SUP in their ICU. Sixty-nine percent of respondents felt that all ICU patients must receive SUP and 44.7% opined that it should be started on ICU arrival. Almost 94% knew that early enteral feeding is protective against stress ulceration. Only 24.9% responders agreed that there must be clear indications for SUP, and most of them were unaware of all the potential side effects. Once initiated, 43.7% respondents would stop prophylaxis when no indication was left, whereas 69 respondents would stop on ICU discharge.

Conclusion

There is a lack of awareness regarding initiation, choice of agent, adverse effects as well as termination of SUP in ICU and guidelines for the same. Institutional protocols should be in place and steps need to be taken to prevent unwarranted use.

How to cite this article

Gupta D, Bhalotra AR, Singh R. Audit on Practices of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(3):160–167.

Re-evaluating the Utility of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Critically Ill Patient: A Clinical Scenario-Based Meta-Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Because recent studies have challenged the efficacy of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the critically ill patient, our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of SUP with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine₂ -receptor antagonists (H₂ RAs) against placebo, control, no therapy, or enteral nutrition alone in critically ill adults.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) of 34 randomized controlled trials.

PATIENTS

A total of 3220 critically ill adults who received PPIs or H₂ RAs versus placebo, control, no therapy, or enteral nutrition.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A systematic review was performed using a random effects meta-analysis with TSA according to a predefined protocol. Randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs or H₂ RAs with either placebo, control, no therapy, or enteral nutrition alone were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature. Two blinded reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias, and extracted data using Cochrane Collaborative methodology. The predefined primary outcomes were clinically important, overt, and any (clinically important plus overt) gastrointestinal bleeding. Secondary outcomes included pneumonia, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), and mortality. Subgroup analyses were conducted for the primary outcome by PPI or H₂ RA use, intensive care unit (ICU) subtype, studies published after early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), the presence of risk factors for stress ulceration, and enteral nutrition use. Of the 34 trials included, 33 were judged as high risk of bias and 1 was judged as low risk. Use of SUP significantly reduced clinically important bleeding (risk ratio [RR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.76, p<0.001; I²  = 0%), overt bleeding (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.76, p=0.0003; I²  = 53%), and any bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.71, p<0.00001; I²  = 58%). TSA confirmed these findings. No significant differences in pneumonia, CDAD, or mortality were noted. Subgroup analyses revealed significant reductions in clinically important bleeding with SUP in neurosurgical patients (RR 0.37, p<0.05) but not in surgery/trauma or medical ICU patients with risk factors. SUP provided no benefit in studies published after EGDT. SUP significantly reduced clinically important bleeding regardless of the use of enteral nutrition (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that SUP use was associated with significant reductions in bleeding but not mortality. SUP should not be abandoned until large randomized trials demonstrate the futility of this intervention.